Monthly Archives: October 2022

National Defense Authorization Act

Posted on by
Reply

This bill is intended to fund our national defense effort, it’s an annual bill, and the one for 2023 is being put together these days.

Here’s some of what the Progressive-Democratic Party Senators insist on including in it, things which they insist are critical to our national security.

  • an amendment to address high credit card fees
  • an amendment to exempt foreign graduates of American universities with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering, and math from annual green card limits
  • an amendment to stop federal employees from being reclassified as political appointees without the consent of Congress

To the extent that some of these are good ideas, they should be put into separate bills and debated and voted on separately. That they’re not is a pretty clear indication that the Progressive-Democrats don’t really believe in them; they’re only using them to obstruct and to push their unrelated agenda.

What Did They Think Would Happen?

Posted on by
Reply

The influx of illegal aliens into New York City is unsustainable, especially for the city’s schools. At least that’s the claim many involved in running the city’s education infrastructure are making, now that they’re being forced to accept the outcome of their city being a Sanctuary City for illegal aliens. For instance, Travis Civic Association President Gene Guerra claims that the school in his neighborhood is already “overflowing” and he’s unsure if the principal would be able to accept more students. He’s insisting,

There’s really no place to put these children.

Mayor Eric Adams (D) now complains that illegal alien (whom he cynically terms “migrants”) “crisis” that confronts New York City will cost the city at least $1 billion by the end of the fiscal year, and

My fellow New Yorkers, we are in a crisis situation[.]

What did these worthies think would happen when the city’s management, after deliberate, conscious, careful consideration, decided to make the city into a Sanctuary City, a status that Adams has so proudly continued?

Of course, the influx is entirely sustainable; as responsible officials, they prepared for the influx. Or were these Progressive-Democrats insincerely virtue-signaling with no intention at all of following through?

Kevin McCarthy’s First-Day Agenda

Posted on by
2

House Minority Leader, and putative Majority Leader should the Republican Party gain the majority in this fall’s mid-term elections, Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) has a first bill in January [that] would aim to repeal the $80 billion IRS expansion that the Progressive-Democratic Party rammed through on strictly party line votes earlier this summer.

I have a suggestion for McCarthy, and the Republicans as a whole, if they do gain that majority.

As soon as the results are confirmed that the Republican Party has the House majority, McCarthy should convene the Republican caucus and work out not only that bill but the others on McCarthy’s “first day” agenda, along with most of the bills the Republicans and Conservatives want during the first 100 days of the new session, and have them finalized within party parameters by the end of the year. They also should work to identify those bills that don’t have party unity yet so the caucus doesn’t waste time on them in that initial period. The caucus also should finalize committee chairmen and memberships.

The caucus then should submit those initial bills to their respective committees on 4 January 2023 (because 3 January will be occupied with formalizing the election vote counts and getting the Congressmen sworn in). Those committees should be prepared to pass the bills out of committee and to the House for floor debate on 5 January, and then the caucus should bring the bills to up or down votes on Friday, 6 January.

If the Progressive-Democratic Party cries that they’re not ready with committee membership or bill debate, that’s too bad. No one and nothing prevented them from using those same two post-election months to get themselves organized for the coming Congressional session and prepared with their own bills and answers to the Republican caucus’ bills. After all, what the Republicans and Conservatives would be proposing already are well enough known—they’ve been campaigning on them. The Progressive-Democrats also should have their proposed bills ready for committee and floor vote—they’ve been campaigning on their policies already, also.

If the Republican Party gains the majority in the Senate, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R, KY) should use the same post-election months to get the Senate Republican caucus organized so it’s ready to go on 4 January with the Senate’s companion bills.

There’s no need to dilly-dally or to let the Progressive-Democratic Party obstruct and stall. It’s time they started working with the Republicans for the good of our nation rather than for their personal and Party power.

Catch-22?

Posted on by
Reply

No, typical Leftist “misunderstanding.”

In a piece about the possibility of an inflation-related increase in Social Security payments, Megan Henney, writing for FOXBusiness, cited this remark from Mary Johnson, The Senior Citizens League‘s Policy Analyst/Editor, about the supposed downside of the increase.

Higher Social Security payments are a bit of a Catch-22. They can reduce eligibility for low-income safety net programs, like food stamps….

That demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of safety net programs. With greater income, there’s less need for the safety net, so of course eligibility should be reduced commensurately.

Only a Leftist, who believes in ever-growing government, could say such a thing with a straight face.

In Which a Judge Gets It Right

Posted on by
Reply

The Wisconsin Election Commission had issued guidance that voters who cast primary election ballots and who had voted for candidates subsequently dropped from the election campaign, but too late for them to be removed from the ballots, could “spoil” their ballots, get a replacement ballot, and vote again.

This guidance is illegal: under Wisconsin law, a voter can do that only before he’s cast his ballot—casting it is final and irrevocable. A Wisconsin judge recognized that, and said, “No.”

It may be useful for a voter, having cast his ballot, to be able to “spoil” that ballot and vote again—after all, corporations, with their mailed-out shareholder ballots know how to handle that as a matter of routine. However, Wisconsin law does not allow for that.

Further, Article I, Section 4, of our Constitution makes crystalline who is allowed to change a State’s election law. It’s a short list, consisting of one entity, and that list does not include election commissions.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof….

Nor does that short list include judges. The judge absolutely was correct to overrule the WEC, which was violating the law. The judge applied Wisconsin’s law as it exists rather than rewriting it and applying the rewrite.